Zone1 What happened to the thread “Here's What Supporters of Gavin Newsom for President, Think is OK”?

[Bob Blaylock]

Just a few minutes ago, I posted into the thread Here's What Supporters of Gavin Newsom for President, Think is OK, and a few minutes later, trying to make another post, I can no longer see or access this thread. As far as I can tell, from the copy still loaded in my browser, there was nothing in it that gives any cause for any action to have been taken against that thread, or against any individual posts therein. But now, any attempt to access that thread gets me “You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.” I certainly haven't done anything to call for being threadbanned from it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Below is the post that I was about to put in the aforementioned thread. I'm just putting it here, now, so that in the event that the thread returns, I'll have this from which to recreate it and post it appropriately therein.

———

While I agree with the vast majority of what you are saying, I have to take issue with this one ^^. CA real estate tax law is the best in the nation. If you bought a house 35 years ago, you would still be paying virtually the same taxes. By law valuation cannot be increased by more than 1% every five years for a total valuation increase of 7% over 35 years. The people who are bitching are those who buy today at inflated prices and they are paying 1% of today's sales value. There have always been those who say that two identical houses pay vastly different taxes. The Prop 13 law keeps people from being taxed out of their homes. If you can afford a $750K home, you should take into account the very reasonable 1% tax bill.

The Democraps raised quiet a howl over Proposition 13 when it was on the ballot. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown was Governor, at the time, and made all sorts of dire predictions about how it would cripple the state government to cut that deeply into their reach into homeowners' pockets.

I remember, in the years leading up to it, that my father occasionally expressed concern that the rising property taxes would drive us out of our home. Of course, he supported Prop 13. and he was probably correct that without it, we would not have been able to keep the house in which I grew up.

When Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown was again Governor, for his much more recent two terms, he made a big project of trying to cut down as much as he could of Proposition 13, and I recall that he did succeed in getting a few holes knocked in it, by way of a few deceptively-worded and sold ballot propositions.

———

{QUOTE="Concerned American, post: 32261148, member: 76636"}
While I agree with the vast majority of what you are saying, I have to take issue with this one ^^. CA real estate tax law is the best in the nation. If you bought a house 35 years ago, you would still be paying virtually the same taxes. By law valuation cannot be increased by more than 1% every five years for a total valuation increase of 7% over 35 years. The people who are bitching are those who buy today at inflated prices and they are paying 1% of today's sales value. There have always been those who say that two identical houses pay vastly different taxes. The Prop 13 law keeps people from being taxed out of their homes. If you can afford a $750K home, you should take into account the very reasonable 1% tax bill.
{/QUOTE}

The Democraps raised quiet a howl over Proposition 13 when it was on the ballot. Jerry {I}“Moonbeam”{/I} Brown was Governor, at the time, and made all sorts of dire predictions about how it would cripple the state government to cut that deeply into their reach into homeowners' pockets.

I remember, in the years leading up to it, that my father occasionally expressed concern that the rising property taxes would drive us out of our home. Of course, he supported Prop 13. and he was probably correct that without it, we would not have been able to keep the house in which I grew up.

When Jerry {I}“Moonbeam”{/I} Brown was again Governor, for his much more recent two terms, he made a big project of trying to cut down as much as he could of Proposition 13, and I recall that he did succeed in getting a few holes knocked in it, by way of a few deceptively-worded and sold ballot propositions.

 

[excalibur]

You should get a notice if it was merged with another article.

 

[MisterBeale]

I deleted it.

The member that started it broke this rule;

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro Coyote katsteve2012 White 6 Registration Guidelines: Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned. Site Wide Rules And...

www.usmessageboard.com

Member's are not allowed to pilfer the entire contents of other Author's works, elsewhere from the web. We need to use good judgement when deciding on, "fair use."

This member, copy and pasted, the entire article in his OP, except for the very last paragraph of the article from his source. That won't cut it.

This source did not fall under Creative Commons license, so, with that in mind, member's need to keep in mind our forum rules are in keeping with the clauses of "FAIR USE."

This OP clearly violated point three of Fair Use, IMO. It was not politically motivated in anyway, but just motivated out of trying to legally protect our membership and community.

Creative Commons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fair use - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MisterBeale]

I monitor another guy when he posts from the Daily Kook for the same behavior. . . it is only fair folks. . .

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I monitor another guy when he posts from the Daily Kook for the same behavior. . . it is only fair folks. . .

Seems to me that an OP based on a Daily KoOkS article ought to be an automatic trip to the Rubber Room. You know damn well that any such thread is going to wind up downstairs, anyway. Might as well not wait.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I deleted it.

The member that started it broke this rule;

USMB Rules and Guidelines

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro Coyote katsteve2012 White 6 Registration Guidelines: Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned. Site Wide Rules And...

www.usmessageboard.com

Member's are not allowed to pilfer the entire contents of other Author's works, elsewhere from the web. We need to use good judgement when deciding on, "fair use."

This member, copy and pasted, the entire article in his OP, except for the very last paragraph of the article from his source. That won't cut it.

This source did not fall under Creative Commons license, so, with that in mind, member's need to keep in mind our forum rules are in keeping with the clauses of "FAIR USE."

This OP clearly violated point three of Fair Use, IMO. It was not politically motivated in anyway, but just motivated out of trying to legally protect our membership and community.

Creative Commons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fair use - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 796272

Seems to me that in the past, the usual way of dealing with that is for a moderator to simply cut down the quoted part, with a notice that it has been done, and why.

Once a thread is underway, with an active conversation going, it seems rather heavy-handed to just shut the whole thing down over a repairable technicality in the OP.

 

[MisterBeale]

Seems to me that an OP based on a Daily KoOkS article ought to be an automatic trip to the Rubber Room. You know damn well that any such thread is going to wind up downstairs, anyway. Might as well not wait.

Be that as it may, this is your partisan POV, informed by your own echo chamber.

Yes, they are heavily partisan, and not to be trusted anymore than say. . .

Would you want everything from Breitbart and The Daily Caller treated the same?

I doubt that.

We are a political discussion board, and the Daily Kos is very, VERY influential on the left. Or are you not aware?

Netroots Nation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

<snip>

 

[MisterBeale]

Seems to me that in the past, the usual way of dealing with that is for a moderator to simply cut down the quoted part, with a notice that it has been done, and why.

I have never, ever remembered this occurring. Editing someone else's work, w/o their permission, is unethical, and a copyright infringement itself. We can only add to a member's post, and then, only lightly, with a Bold RED FONT, indicating what we have added, and why.

I would not presume to begin to think, I could to read protectionist's mind, as to what parts of that text he would want to leave remaining to get it down to under 40% remaining. . . . . . .

Honestly.

. . and, on top of all that? He added no commentary OF HIS OWN!!!!!

Go on, quote for me his original commentary in that first post.

Once a thread is underway, with an active conversation going, it seems rather heavy-handed to just shut the whole thing down over a repairable technicality in the OP.

Of course it is heavy handed. That was a serious violation.

protectionist has been a member here longer than you. There is no excuse for him not knowing how to post an OP by now. This type of moderation should be a good wake up call. I sincerely apologize if you got caught up in the blood bath of a heavy handed axe blow.

But, you too have been here long enough to know the rules, and should have reported this OP yourself. You apparently, in your biased slavering over this article, did not inspect the quality of the OP, to see if it was a good start, which IT WAS NOT. . . .

You are better, and smarter than this Bob, I know you are.

Now don't you feel dumb?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Be that as it may, this is your partisan POV, informed by your own echo chamber.

Yes, they are heavily partisan, and not to be trusted anymore than say. . .

View attachment 796281

Would you want everything from Breitbart and The Daily Caller treated the same?

I doubt that.

We are a political discussion board, and the Daily Kos is very, VERY influential on the left. Or are you not aware?

Netroots Nation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 796284
<snip>

View attachment 796282

I fully admit that my view is slanted by my partisan alignment. But even so, there are some sources on the left wrong that are just so batshit crazy, and non-credible, that even if I were a flaming LIbtARd, I would have to se them as such. I can think of few examples as extreme, that way, as Daily KoOkS.

If I leaned that way, I would hate Daily KoOkS for making that side look so crazy, so stupid, so dishonest, and just so bad in almost every way. In a way, as a conservative, I guess I rather appreciate Daily KoOkS for that same exact reason.

Breitbart, while admittedly right-leaning, is not at all comparable, and it is not honest to mention it in a way that treats it as a right-wing counterpart to Daily KoOkS. same with The daily Caller. InfoWars, maybe, but it doesn't seem to me that even it manages anywhere near Daily KoOkS' level of crackpottery.

Being biased is not the same thing as being batshit crazy.

 

[MisterBeale]

Well, biased or not, I just don't want to see folks Copy and Pasting 80-90% of full articles, from anywhere. Regardless of the source.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Seems to me that in the past, the usual way of dealing with that is for a moderator to simply cut down the quoted part, with a notice that it has been done, and why.

I have never, ever remembered this occurring. Editing someone else's work, w/o their permission, is unethical, and a copyright infringement itself. We can only add to a member's post, and then, only lightly, with a Bold RED FONT, indicating what we have added, and why.

I would not presume to begin to think, I could to read protectionist's mind, as to what parts of that text he would want to leave remaining to get it down to under 40% remaining. . . . . . .

That's how I've seen it handled on this forum in the past. Admittedly, there's a certain ethical hazard, always, in editing someone else's text, in ways which might misrepresent the author to which the now-edited text remains attributed. But here, you've just wipe out a whole active conversation, because of a technicality in the OP, effectively punishing everyone who was participating in that conversation.

Go on, quote for me his original commentary in that first post.

I really can't do that, now, can I? You've destroyed the evidence. At this point, you can claim anything about what was or was not in the OP, and I have no way of seeing for myself or of providing any evidence.

But, you too have been here long enough to know the rules, and should have reported this OP yourself. You apparently, in your biased slavering over this article, did not inspect the quality of the OP, to see if it was a good start, which IT WAS NOT. . . .

You are better, and smarter than this Bob, I know you are.

You want me to behave “like a good German”, do you? Rat out my neighbors, even my family members if necessary, over every perceived violation of Big Brother's dictates? Maybe someone is hiding a Jew in his attic? Or a runaway slave in his basement?

Fuck that. And fuck you for even suggesting it. Seriously, and I meant this with every ounce of respect that it is due (which is none at all), fuck you.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well, biased or not, I just don't want to see folks Copy and Pasting 80-90% of full articles, from anywhere. Regardless of the source.

Ummmmm IM2 cough, cough..........

 

[MisterBeale]

C'mon now. . .

I really can't do that, now, can I? You've destroyed the evidence. At this point, you can claim anything about what was or was not in the OP, and I have no way of seeing for myself or of providing any evidence.

WTH?!

You saw fit to link that thread in your OP, which I deleted, and moved, so members would not see. . . so you clearly have some oppositional tendencies. Did you not forget your link? You preserved the evidence yourself, IN POST #1, of this VERY THREAD!

Did you forget, or are you playing possum?

You want me to behave “like a good German”, do you? Rat out my neighbors, even my family members if necessary, over every perceived violation of Big Brother's dictates?

You are like, just about the only conservative on this board, that plays this game. If you weren't so partisan in your application of the rules, I'd say you would be good moderator. I have told you over and over, that rules for merging threads, they don't seem to sink in though. If they would, your reports on duplicate threads, would be some of the most helpful reports. Stop being coy already.

 

[MisterBeale]

Ummmmm IM2 cough, cough..........

I don't ever watch that sub-forum much.

Guilty.

Though most of the time, the sources he posts from, are so long, that I have seen he doesn't post more that 50%, of what he links to, when I do look at what he posts from. . .

It really is hard to post entire studies. . . His posts are long enough as it is.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I don't ever watch that sub-forum much.

You have a better instinct for self-preservation than I.

 

[MisterBeale]

You have a better instinct for self-preservation than I.

Well, I just believe, that having such a sub-forum, makes this political forum, biased towards the left side of the political spectrum.

I have wanted, since becoming a moderator, the "Tea-Party," forum, renamed, to a sub-forum for populist conservative issues, something more contemporary, like the ZONE 1 Freedom Caucus.

But I don't own the place, and there ain't nothing I can do.

SO I just like to stay away, from the culture trying to turn what IS NOT a political issue, race relations, into one.

Likewise, there are issues now, which conseratives like to turn into political issue, which are not. . . but that is not what this thread is about.

We shall close it now.

Because this Zone itself, is "Zone 1," and this;

fuck you.

Is not Zone 1 behavior.

I gave the reason why the thread was closed, to protect the forum, and the membership, and Bob can't accept it. Oh well.